Here Comes the Anti-Government Left. Elizabeth Warren is more radical than Bill de Blasio—and has

[DonViejo]

Here Comes the Anti-Government Left
Why Elizabeth Warren is more radical than Bill de Blasio—and has more national appeal, too

Ever since Bill de Blasio coasted to the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York, political taxonomists have fixated on a new left-wing ideology: “deBlasioWarren populism,” a kind of Germanic rhetorical synthesis of the mayor and the Massachusetts senator. Critics and boosters alike have crowned the two pols leaders of the same movement, albeit with centrists warning that it represents an electoral “dead end” and liberals cheering the clarifying virtues of the new “progressive populism.”

As it happens, though, de Blasio and Warren stand for two distinct, if overlapping, worldviews. And one is likely to be far more successful at a time of near-record distrust of government.

Start with de Blasio, who famously made social and economic inequality the centerpiece of his campaign—anyone who follows politics can recite his “tale of two cities” indictment of the Bloomberg era. De Blasio assailed the privileges of the wealthy (“If you live on Park Avenue, you got everything you need. Nannies and housekeepers…” began one de Blasio ad. He championed affordable housing, and promised a local minimum wage and more sick leave for workers. His signature initiative would raise taxes on New Yorkers making over $500,000 to fund universal pre-kindergarten and after-school programs.

Warren spends much less time fulminating against the rich per se. Though she has an interest in inequality, she talks far more about the middle-class than the poor. Her signal preoccupation is the way financial institutions have amassed enormous economic and political advantages at the expense of everyone else. She has co-sponsored a bill that would break up the megabanks. She has labored to expose why it is that federal regulators never take big banks to court. She decries the way reform battles in Congress pit a few dozen activists against thousands of industry lobbyists, an asymmetry that virtually guarantees victory for the status quo.

more
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116193/anti-government-left-elizabeth-warren-stronger-bill-de-blasio

[Schema Thing]

1. One is the executive of a city, and one is a US Senator

I hate this type of writing.

[madrchsod]

2. my 8th grade english teacher would have given him a C-

[Impedimentus]

3. It's a good article, if anyone bothers to actually read it.

This (below) is right on and why Warren scares the plutocracy, which knows it can live with de Blasio if it loosens the trickle down faucet in NYC a little. My point is not meant to disparage de Blasio, a good guy and hopefully he will be an excellent mayor.


"Warren spends much less time fulminating against the rich per se. Though she has an interest in inequality, she talks far more about the middle-class than the poor. Her signal preoccupation is the way financial institutions have amassed enormous economic and political advantages at the expense of everyone else. She has co-sponsored a bill that would break up the megabanks. She has labored to expose why it is that federal regulators never take big banks to court. She decries the way reform battles in Congress pit a few dozen activists against thousands of industry lobbyists, an asymmetry that virtually guarantees victory for the status quo."


Nationalize the too big to fail banks, it is the only way to save our democracy (impeaching a couple Supreme Court justices might also help).